I guess we can surely agree that the way things seem is at least partly not dependent on the way things are(exist). This of course assumes that there is a way things are(exist) independent of the way things seem.chownah

I could not see them completely similar, no matter how I put my fingers over the monitor. So I did copy/paste the image to Paint and found that both colors have exactly the same RGB values of 120/120/120. Convinced by the evidence of the numbers, not by my eyes.

suriyopama wrote:I could not see them completely similar, no matter how I put my fingers over the monitor. So I did copy/paste the image to Paint and found that both colors have exactly the same RGB values of 120/120/120. Convinced by the evidence of the numbers, not by my eyes.

But this is decontextualizing things.There is the assumption that if we decontextualize something, we will "see it as it really is." But what we think as "decontextualization," is in fact just a recontextualization - taking something from one context and placing into into another one. Because that second context seems more normative, normal, or usual, we might not even think of it as a context.

What color is my avatar? A nice saffron? A wild orange? A dirty orange? Ochre? Depends on the settings of the monitor.Since we're in digital techniology, it is indeed possible to specify the exact color coordinates of a pixel on the screen. But what those color coordinates really look like, independently of the settings of the monitor - this is not possible to know.

Kim OHara wrote:A question for everyone, but especially for those disagreeing with each other:Where is your "experience" located? Is it ...(1) the real colour of the real tiles and cylinder (assuming they existed in the real world) ?(2) the real colour of the tiles in the picture?(3) the perceived colour of the tiles in the picture?(4) the interpreted colour of the tiles in the picture (as per Dave's excellent post)?

Kim

Hi Kim, I would say that "experience" is the direct perception of shades (so, I choose (3)). And, strictly speaking, experiences are not located anywhere. It is because the idea of location (here and there) itself is constructed due to avijja-based experiences, and therefore location is not primary than the experience itself. Experiences do not happen in locations, rather locations happen in experiences.

Hi, Sam,Thanks for taking me up on that suggestion. What I was trying to get at with my question, "Where is your "experience" located?" was that there is a sequence of intermediates between the real objects and the decision about whether they are the same or different, and that each of us may label a different point in that sequence as "the perception". You have actually chosen two points - (3) just now and (4) earlier when you said, "In my opinion the square A and B have different shades in the image." (We only see different shades by interpreting them in relation to shadows and contrast, as Dave said.)

It gets worse.

binocular wrote:What color is my avatar? A nice saffron? A wild orange? A dirty orange? Ochre? Depends on the settings of the monitor.Since we're in digital techniology, it is indeed possible to specify the exact color coordinates of a pixel on the screen. But what those color coordinates really look like, independently of the settings of the monitor - this is not possible to know.

The colour specified by the computer processor is one thing; the colour appearing on the screen is another, since monitor settings vary; the emotional value each of us puts on a colour we see (dirty, nice, wild, etc) is different ... and after all that, none of us will ever know what a particular colour "looks like" to anyone else because it's a purely subjective experience, purely internal, fundamentally private. The most we can do is say "this looks the same as that to me" or "this looks different from that" or "this and this are both yellow but they are different yellows."

And that's where we return to the OP's illusion: the two tiles "look different to me" but are measurably "the same".

Kim OHara wrote:And that's where we return to the OP's illusion: the two tiles "look different to me" but are measurably "the same".

The illusion is rather in when one thinks that looking at the picture in the OP, and looking at the picture in the OP while covering all other fields except A and B,is the same thing, is looking at the same picture.

chownah wrote:I guess we can surely agree that the way things seem is at least partly not dependent on the way things are(exist). This of course assumes that there is a way things are(exist) independent of the way things seem.chownah

We can categorize "way things are" as: (1) The way things are in direct experience; (2) The way things are "out there" independent of experience.We can be sure of the first one since the things are directly arising as experiences. But the second one can only be conceived, assumed, speculated, or at best inferred based on the un-universal and impermanent correlations between experience and "objective" information "out there".

Last edited by SamKR on Wed Dec 18, 2013 3:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

suriyopama wrote:I could not see them completely similar, no matter how I put my fingers over the monitor. So I did copy/paste the image to Paint and found that both colors have exactly the same RGB values of 120/120/120. Convinced by the evidence of the numbers, not by my eyes.

Of course, when you measure the numbers will match. But there is also the vivid and live experience of difference in shades that is arising right now at this moment when you see it. Can we ignore and deny the arising and dismiss it as mere illusion - and then assume that they have the same color as an objective reality because the numbers match? Isn't the color part of experience rather than property of those blocks assumed to be out there?

Last edited by SamKR on Wed Dec 18, 2013 3:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Kim OHara wrote:What I was trying to get at with my question, "Where is your "experience" located?" was that there is a sequence of intermediates between the real objects and the decision about whether they are the same or different, and that each of us may label a different point in that sequence as "the perception". You have actually chosen two points - (3) just now and (4) earlier when you said, "In my opinion the square A and B have different shades in the image." (We only see different shades by interpreting them in relation to shadows and contrast, as Dave said.)

There is no intentional interpretation; interpretation & experience or perception happened automatically (and dependently) - and for me there is undeniable vivid arising of two different shades of grey in square A and B. Sorry if I misunderstood the point (4) but I think that your point (4) reduces as point (3) for me.

Kim OHara wrote:What I was trying to get at with my question, "Where is your "experience" located?" was that there is a sequence of intermediates between the real objects and the decision about whether they are the same or different, and that each of us may label a different point in that sequence as "the perception". You have actually chosen two points - (3) just now and (4) earlier when you said, "In my opinion the square A and B have different shades in the image." (We only see different shades by interpreting them in relation to shadows and contrast, as Dave said.)

There is no intentional interpretation; interpretation & experience or perception happened automatically (and dependently) - and for me there is undeniable vivid arising of two different shades of grey in square A and B. Sorry if I misunderstood the point (4) but I think that your point (4) reduces as point (3) for me.

Hi, Sam,The difference between (3) and (4) is that (3) is a function of the eye and its associated brain cells while (4) is a function of the brain, operating on (3). Without (4), we would see the two shades as being the same - just as a machine, or a naive viewer who didn't understand tiles and shadows, would see them.As you realise, we aren't normally aware of this extra step because it is automatic and one of the functions (and fun things) about illusions is to bring to consciousness the way our perceptions work.

Kim OHara wrote:The difference between (3) and (4) is that (3) is a function of the eye and its associated brain cells while (4) is a function of the brain, operating on (3). Without (4), we would see the two shades as being the same - just as a machine, or a naive viewer who didn't understand tiles and shadows, would see them.

I think my personal view is different regarding how consciousness/perception and eye/brain arise. And I am aware that views are just views - a source of clinging. So, for now instead of focusing on about how something happens let us focus on what actually is happening now at this moment.

Kim OHara wrote:As you realise, we aren't normally aware of this extra step because it is automatic and one of the functions (and fun things) about illusions is to bring to consciousness the way our perceptions work.

What actually happening for me at this moment when I look at the image is: a darker square A and a lighter square B - that is actually undeniably happening - vividly shining perception in the light of consciousness - and the fact that that is happening is not an illusion.

Now the question may arise: isn't the square A and B are reflecting the same frequencies (& brightness etc.) of light? Yes, when you measure you will find that the frequencies (& brightness etc.) are the same.If they have the same physical information aren't they of same color? No, the perception of color is not the same as physical information. The original question was: are squares A and B of the same shade of grey or different? The question was not whether the physical information behind the colors was the same or different.

Last edited by SamKR on Thu Dec 19, 2013 3:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.

SamKR wrote:What actually happening for me at this moment when I look at the image is: a darker square A and a lighter square B - that is actually undeniably happening - vividly shining perception in the light of consciousness - and that is not an illusion.

and before the Buddha people believed in the continuous presence of a self even though that was an illusion, appearance vs reality.

Aflame with the fire of passion, the fire of aversion, the fire of delusion.Aflame, with birth, aging & death, with sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs ......Seeing thus, the disciple of the Noble One grows disenchanted. SN 35.28